Update 8 July 2014: The SWA said it selected the painting during the submissions process for its annual open exhibition. The executive secretary, Rebecca Cotton, said: "We thought the painting was beautifully executed and the composition was much admired. We saw nothing wrong with it; had we, the piece would not have been selected. We hire the gallery space from the Mall Galleries for the period that the show is on. The gallery took it down without seeking our approval."
Update 8 July 2014: The SWA said it selected the painting during the submissions process for its annual open exhibition. The executive secretary, Rebecca Cotton, said: "We thought the painting was beautifully executed and the composition was much admired. We saw nothing wrong with it; had we, the piece would not have been selected. We hire the gallery space from the Mall Galleries for the period that the show is on. The gallery took it down without seeking our approval."
Does this mean it is back up?
Obviously we can't see the standard of the execution as we can't see the original, just the photograph in the link. TBH, the style reminded me of the lady with the green face so beloved by folks in the 1950's and available from BOOTS.
give them experience of different types of art work and a better appreciation of artistic nude imagery. Also that it's not something to be embarrassed about.
If the Guardian thinks the image is suitable for children then why does it only show the top of the picture on the page and require its readers to click on another link to see the full picture.
I agree with those that complained about the picture due to its location en route for children going to the learning centre.
For those that do not think Leena McCall's depiction of her friend in 'Portrait of Ms Ruby May is erotica or sexual, the artist and model would be disapointed.
Lee McCall states her work deals with female sexual and erotic identity and described the decision to take down the picture as erotic censorship.
The model Ruby May who describes herself as a sexpansionist states the work is about sexually empowered woman.
It's a bit more than mildly erotic, naughty or saucey. There's a clear allusion to fetishism and possibly female submissiveness due to the models clothing.
I would't want to be forced in to explaining that kind of stuff to kids.
In fact I wouldn't object if she was fully nude as I could come up with some guff about the human body being a work of art in itself etc etc
It's a bit more than mildly erotic, naughty or saucey. There's a clear allusion to fetishism and possibly female submissiveness due to the models clothing.
I would't want to be forced in to explaining that kind of stuff to kids.
In fact I wouldn't object if she was fully nude as I could come up with some guff about the human body being a work of art in itself etc etc
And how many children under the age of, say, 16 do you think would understand the concepts of "fetishism" and "female submissiveness"?
I doubt many kids kids would get passed the fact the top of her trousers are undone and she isn't wearing any knickers. A few might notice she had a pipe in her mouth, but little more.
If the Guardian thinks the image is suitable for children then why does it only show the top of the picture on the page and require its readers to click on another link to see the full picture.
I agree with those that complained about the picture due to its location en route for children going to the learning centre.
For those that do not think Leena McCall's depiction of her friend in 'Portrait of Ms Ruby May is erotica or sexual, the artist and model would be disapointed.
Lee McCall states her work deals with female sexual and erotic identity and described the decision to take down the picture as erotic censorship.
The model Ruby May who describes herself as a sexpansionist states the work is about sexually empowered woman.
why? And what affect will it have on children? Do you think kids should live in a bubble and not be exposed to any nudity or even the mildest forms of erotica? As a parent myself i don't think this is the way forward at all.
And how many children under the age of, say, 16 do you think would understand the concepts of "fetishism" and "female submissiveness"?
I doubt many kids kids would get passed the fact the top of her trousers are undone and she isn't wearing any knickers. A few might notice she had a pipe in her mouth, but little more.
The point is the painting is more than a little naughty. Parents tend to not expose their kids to very adult concepts, the kids understanding of if is irrelevant. A child could easily ask why the lady is wearing her clothes like that. A parent should be given some sort of choice or warning.
The point is the painting is more than a little naughty. Parents tend to not expose their kids to very adult concepts, the kids understanding of if is irrelevant. A child could easily ask why the lady is wearing her clothes like that. A parent should be given some sort of choice or warning.
And the answer to that question is to say she is wearing her clothes like that because she is posing for the painting, it is not real life.
Kids are "exposed" to adult concepts every day, however because they have no understanding of them it passes them by.
why? And what affect will it have on children? Do you think kids should live in a bubble and not be exposed to any nudity or even the mildest forms of erotica? As a parent myself i don't think this is the way forward at all.
Sadly this is the new reality.
Shield children from absolutely everything and then wonder why, when they reach the age of 18, so many are unable to cope with the big nasty world that awaits them.
It's a bit more than mildly erotic, naughty or saucey. There's a clear allusion to fetishism and possibly female submissiveness due to the models clothing.
I would't want to be forced in to explaining that kind of stuff to kids.
In fact I wouldn't object if she was fully nude as I could come up with some guff about the human body being a work of art in itself etc etc
You don't need to.
My children grew up with illustrations, cover art, antique anatomical illustrations and paintings around our house. Some of those are mildly erotic and some are the sort that some may deem controversial. Parents of our kids' friends have no problem with those. I think it's the exposure that removes the mystery or titillation of the human body.
Children don't necessarily see or react the same way adults do, either. We once relocated one large print to my office upstairs at one kid's parents request because it'd unnerved their 9-year-old enough to have nightmares. This is the one: Moebius's Tetsuo (a young man sitting in loose trousers and no top). Nothing erotic or scary about it, but it was enough to disturb her. I think the clue is in a nickname she gave to the print: "the puppet man".
Adult women, and men for that matter, have pubic hair. Get over it.
I remember seeing a "French" movie late at night in black & white on BBC2 when my parents were asleep. School mates had tipped me off. A woman came down the stairs with her naughty bits painted black in the shape of a triangle.
It has been censored I thought to myself and went frustrated to bed.
How was I to know that women had pubic hair? All the classical paintings and sculptures showed no pubic hair.
Because in my opinion and according to the artist and model the painting is erotica and contains sexualized partial nudity and in the UK we generally do not expose children to such material, as such matters are left to the parents discretion. For example the professional publishers association, national federation of retail newsagents, the association of convenience stores, etc; have guidelines on the placement of magazines, like lads mag, and adult magazines that feature erotica.
And the answer to that question is to say she is wearing her clothes like that because she is posing for the painting, it is not real life.
Kids are "exposed" to adult concepts every day, however because they have no understanding of them it passes them by.
This is simply unwarrented censorship.
I think kids have a greater understanding than you give them credit for, it's also crucial to understand its a very immature understanding that parents would like to have control of and teach kids at their own pace.
Surely you don't object to a warning for parents? What on earth could be the harm in that why don't you want to give people a choice?
My children grew up with illustrations, cover art, antique anatomical illustrations and paintings around our house. Some of those are mildly erotic and some are the sort that some may deem controversial. Parents of our kids' friends have no problem with those. I think it's the exposure that removes the mystery or titillation of the human body.
Children don't necessarily see or react the same way adults do, either. We once relocated one large print to my office upstairs at one kid's parents request because it'd unnerved their 9-year-old enough to have nightmares. This is the one: Moebius's Tetsuo (a young man sitting in loose trousers and no top). Nothing erotic or scary about it, but it was enough to disturb her. I think the clue is in a nickname she gave to the print: "the puppet man".
Can you point to examples if not exactly then similar?
When I was in primary school, a girl decided to gather a crowd of boys and proceed to do a striptease. I have never seen a Dinnerlady move so fast...
This girl had obviously seen something to prompt this behaviour. It is one thing trying to be seen as all 'cool liberal' but it is foolish not to understand that children are influenced by what they see - you only need to look at how are society has changed towards sexualisation of children and teen pregnancies.
For a long time, there have always been things for adults that are not suitable for children and it is the same around the world. I don't see the benefit of changing this.
This painting may be fairly 'tame' but don't pretend it is on the level of a picture of a vase or a landscape. There is still good reason why you don't see pictures like this in children's books.
That's a really great painting and not pornographic in any way. It's quite thought provoking. Shame on any gallery for not putting that up when they display myriads of rubbish.
I think kids have a greater understanding than you give them credit for, it's also crucial to understand its a very immature understanding that parents would like to have control of and teach kids at their own pace.
Surely you don't object to a warning for parents? What on earth could be the harm in that why don't you want to give people a choice?
People should learn to deal with the unexpected, rather than have their life signposted for them.
As for choice, there was no "choice" as the painting was removed without either the artist or those putting on the exhibition being informed.
I don't think it is a particularly good painting but then, of course that's not the point.
We should not be censoring art. As the article says, the people reaching for their smelling salts had better avoid the Musee d'Orsay and Courbet's L'Origine du Monde. They'll swoon clean away.
I don't think it is a particularly good painting but then, of course that's not the point.
We should not be censoring art. As the article says, the people reaching for their smelling salts had better avoid the Musee d'Orsay and Courbet's L'Origine du Monde. They'll swoon clean away.
It is not people reaching for their smelling salts it is people hurrying their children past what they consider an inapropriate painting on the way to the children's learning centre. It is the position of the painting that was objectionable to people and the reason it was taken down. As a society we generally censor adult erotica featuring sexualized partial nudity from children and leave such matters up to parental discretion.
Comments
I have no idea.
What do you think it may do?
Most likely it will make them snigger in an annoying manner
Does this mean it is back up?
Obviously we can't see the standard of the execution as we can't see the original, just the photograph in the link. TBH, the style reminded me of the lady with the green face so beloved by folks in the 1950's and available from BOOTS.
give them experience of different types of art work and a better appreciation of artistic nude imagery. Also that it's not something to be embarrassed about.
I agree with those that complained about the picture due to its location en route for children going to the learning centre.
For those that do not think Leena McCall's depiction of her friend in 'Portrait of Ms Ruby May is erotica or sexual, the artist and model would be disapointed.
Lee McCall states her work deals with female sexual and erotic identity and described the decision to take down the picture as erotic censorship.
The model Ruby May who describes herself as a sexpansionist states the work is about sexually empowered woman.
It's a bit more than mildly erotic, naughty or saucey. There's a clear allusion to fetishism and possibly female submissiveness due to the models clothing.
I would't want to be forced in to explaining that kind of stuff to kids.
In fact I wouldn't object if she was fully nude as I could come up with some guff about the human body being a work of art in itself etc etc
Welcome to the new age of Puritanism.
And how many children under the age of, say, 16 do you think would understand the concepts of "fetishism" and "female submissiveness"?
I doubt many kids kids would get passed the fact the top of her trousers are undone and she isn't wearing any knickers. A few might notice she had a pipe in her mouth, but little more.
why? And what affect will it have on children? Do you think kids should live in a bubble and not be exposed to any nudity or even the mildest forms of erotica? As a parent myself i don't think this is the way forward at all.
The point is the painting is more than a little naughty. Parents tend to not expose their kids to very adult concepts, the kids understanding of if is irrelevant. A child could easily ask why the lady is wearing her clothes like that. A parent should be given some sort of choice or warning.
And the answer to that question is to say she is wearing her clothes like that because she is posing for the painting, it is not real life.
Kids are "exposed" to adult concepts every day, however because they have no understanding of them it passes them by.
This is simply unwarrented censorship.
Sadly this is the new reality.
Shield children from absolutely everything and then wonder why, when they reach the age of 18, so many are unable to cope with the big nasty world that awaits them.
My children grew up with illustrations, cover art, antique anatomical illustrations and paintings around our house. Some of those are mildly erotic and some are the sort that some may deem controversial. Parents of our kids' friends have no problem with those. I think it's the exposure that removes the mystery or titillation of the human body.
Children don't necessarily see or react the same way adults do, either. We once relocated one large print to my office upstairs at one kid's parents request because it'd unnerved their 9-year-old enough to have nightmares. This is the one: Moebius's Tetsuo (a young man sitting in loose trousers and no top). Nothing erotic or scary about it, but it was enough to disturb her. I think the clue is in a nickname she gave to the print: "the puppet man".
I remember seeing a "French" movie late at night in black & white on BBC2 when my parents were asleep. School mates had tipped me off. A woman came down the stairs with her naughty bits painted black in the shape of a triangle.
It has been censored I thought to myself and went frustrated to bed.
How was I to know that women had pubic hair? All the classical paintings and sculptures showed no pubic hair.
I think kids have a greater understanding than you give them credit for, it's also crucial to understand its a very immature understanding that parents would like to have control of and teach kids at their own pace.
Surely you don't object to a warning for parents? What on earth could be the harm in that
Can you point to examples if not exactly then similar?
This girl had obviously seen something to prompt this behaviour. It is one thing trying to be seen as all 'cool liberal' but it is foolish not to understand that children are influenced by what they see - you only need to look at how are society has changed towards sexualisation of children and teen pregnancies.
For a long time, there have always been things for adults that are not suitable for children and it is the same around the world. I don't see the benefit of changing this.
This painting may be fairly 'tame' but don't pretend it is on the level of a picture of a vase or a landscape. There is still good reason why you don't see pictures like this in children's books.
People should learn to deal with the unexpected, rather than have their life signposted for them.
As for choice, there was no "choice" as the painting was removed without either the artist or those putting on the exhibition being informed.
We should not be censoring art. As the article says, the people reaching for their smelling salts had better avoid the Musee d'Orsay and Courbet's L'Origine du Monde. They'll swoon clean away.